Displaying 1-20 of 21 results for

This toolkit is designed to support public health leaders in leveraging the policy development process to achieve health equity in their jurisdiction.

To address the youth tobacco epidemic, jurisdictions filed lawsuits against JUUL to end their marketing practices aimed at youth and to obtain compensation from the financial toll experienced by communities.

While communities transition from emergency response to long-term monitoring and recovery, the federal government and states are taking legislative action to improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

State and Federal Actions to Reduce Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances’ Impact on Public Health safe drinking water act, per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, water supplies, contaminated groundwater, chemical companies, pfas contamination, forever chemicals, synthetic chemicals, maximum contaminant levels, industrial pretreatment program, polyfluoroalkyl substances pfas, chemical sales, chemical industry, bottled water, safe drinking water act sdwa, unregulated contaminants, companies in the world, united states, consumer products, 1996 amendments, national primary drinking water, surface water, water system, largest chemical companies, pfas strategic roadmap, primary drinking water regulations, pfas chemicals, pfoa and pfos, drinking water, testing for pfas, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Maggie Davis, Beth Giambrone State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health Since 2018, when the city of Stuart, Florida filed its lawsuit, communities across the United States have filed lawsuits against manufacturers that produce Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alleging that they contaminated groundwater and exposed residents to these harmful chemicals. In June 2023, manufacturer 3M agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle the Stuart lawsuit and others across the country with public drinking water systems. Similarly, chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached $1.18 billion settlement with local communities that have detected PFAS in their water supplies. PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in products like nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, which can migrate to soil, water, and air during production and use. Most of these chemicals remain in the environment without breaking down—hence the nickname “forever chemicals”—and can cause harmful health effects (e.g., higher risks of kidney or testicular cancer, and pre-eclampsia or high blood pressure among pregnant people) and are prevalent across the nation. Evidence shows the widespread nature of exposure to the chemicals and the economic costs of exposure. For example, a 2023 USGS study estimated that at least 45% of tap water nationwide could have one or more PFAS, while recent research estimates the annual cost of the disease burden attributable to long-chain (i.e., six or more carbon) PFAS exposure to be at least $5 billion. As communities seek restitution for PFAS contamination, federal and state policymakers are working to eliminate PFAS from ground water and drinking water and to mitigate exposure to these forever chemicals. Eliminating PFAS in Drinking Water Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has the authority to regulate the public drinking water supply in the United States. These regulations establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Treatment Techniques and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for public water systems. EPA’s recently proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation could potentially add six different PFAS compounds to the list of regulated contaminants. Within the PFAS chemical family, PFOA and PFOS are proposed to each have MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), while PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX would be regulated collectively as a mixture using EPA's Hazard Index approach. The proposed rule also could require public water systems to monitor and notify the public of PFAS levels and reduce the levels in drinking water if they exceed proposed standards. According to a survey conducted by the Environmental Council of the States, state guidelines vary; at least eleven states have established statewide MCLs for PFAS in drinking water. Some states prohibit their agencies from setting standards more stringent than federal ones and, in the absence of a federal standard, state agencies may hesitate to establish one that could easily be invalidated. In other cases, a lack of resources inhibits the agency’s capacity to set and enforce a PFAS standard. When a federal standard is established by EPA’s final rule, expected by the end of 2023, state primacy agencies will need to enforce the federal standard and adopt standards aligned with the federal standard or stronger within two years. Additional State Efforts to Reduce PFAS Exposure Even without MCLs, states are finding ways to mitigate the public’s exposure to PFAS. In 2023, states enacted legislation on banning PFAS in consumer products, increased requirements for testing and reporting of PFAS, and PFAS mitigation. Banning PFAS in Products Indiana enacted HB 1341 prohibiting fire departments from purchasing gear unless it contains a permanent label indicating whether it does or does not contain PFAS as of June 30, 2024. Minnesota’s HF 2310 prohibits selling or distributing products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026. An exception may be made if the manufacturer submits information to the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency such as the product, the amount of PFAS used, and the amount of PFAS in the product. The Oregon legislature enacted SB 543, which prohibits the selling or using polystyrene foam containers for prepared food, food containers containing intentionally added PFAS, and polystyrene packaging peanuts. Washington enacted HB 1047, which prohibits manufacturing, distributing, and selling cosmetic products with PFAS and other chemicals or chemical classes as of January 1, 2025. Testing/Reporting Indiana enacted HB 1219, establishing a pilot program that collects blood samples of previous or current firefighters, analyzes the samples for serum PFAS levels, and determines whether there are corresponding health implications associated with elevated serum PFAS levels. Maine’s LD 1248 requires bottlers who extract water from the state to sell as bottled water to test, regularly monitor, and report the presence of PFAS to the Department of Health and Human Services and post the results on a public-facing website. Sales of bottled water are prohibited if PFAS levels in the water source exceed the state or federal community water system standards, whichever is lower. Currently, Maine has an interim MCL standard of 20 ppt. Virginia’s HB 2189 directs the State Water Control Board to adopt regulations requiring industrial users of publicly owned treatment works to test waste streams for PFAS before and after cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, or processing items the user knows or reasonably should know uses PFAS chemicals. West Virginia’s HB 3189 requires its Department of Environmental Protection to identify and address sources of PFAS in raw sources of public drinking water systems. It also requires facilities to report the use of PFAS if they discharge to surface waters under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works under an industrial pretreatment program. Mitigation Connecticut enacted SB 100 establishing a PFAS testing account, which provides municipalities with grants or reimbursements for testing and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Maine enacted LD 289, which requires the state to purchase the real estate of a commercial farm found to be contaminated by PFAS before January 1, 2023 at the assessed fair market value but at no less than $20,000 per acre, and provides that the fair market value assessment cannot take PFAS contamination into consideration. Two enacted bills in Rhode Island (SB 724 and HB 5861) amend current law to add that if PFAS in drinking water exceed the state’s interim standard of 20 ppt, the state and the public water supply will enter into an agreement that requires dates for submittal of water treatment plans that will reduce the PFAS levels to or below the interim level. As more information emerges about the health effects of PFAS, states will be sure to continue their work to combat, mitigate, and report on their presence in the environment. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on all legislative and regulatory activity around this issue. Special Thanks-Blog - State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health website yes

In the current legislative cycle, there are several policy strategies that support the development and integration of community health workers into the public health workforce, including dedicated federal funding and state laws supporting workforce development programs, certification standards, and Medicaid coverage.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: data privacy and modernization, reproductive health, health equity, strengthening public health agencies, and immunization.

Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e

The ASTHO State Health Policy team provides brief updates on 5 of the ten state health policy issues to watch in 2022: mental and behavioral health, rural health, e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, HIV and PFAS.

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

An increasing body of research finds racism can have a significant impact across one’s lifespan. Research shows that persistent exposure to racial discrimination may result in premature aging, poor health outcomes, and increased prevalence of certain chronic diseases. At every level of government, policymakers are seeking to acknowledge the systemic oppression of people of color that persists and to elevate racism as an urgent public health crisis comparable to other public health emergencies.

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Outcomes and Implications of ACIP’s Vote on the Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Implications of ACIP Vote on Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Kim Martin, Jessica Baggett Learn about the outcomes and implications of the December 2025 ACIP vote on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. On Dec. 4 and 5, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held a long-anticipated meeting featuring two major topics of discussion: the hepatitis B birth dose and the pediatric vaccine schedule. The committee voted on two questions related to the pediatric hepatitis B vaccine schedule, both of which passed. To briefly summarize the outcome of the meeting, ACIP shifted from recommending a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns to individualized decision-making for newborns born to HBsAg-negative mothers. There was no change to the recommendation for infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers or whose HBsAg status is unknown. CDC has not yet adopted these changes. In the meantime, many states are taking actions to provide clarity to providers and promote public confidence in the vaccine. How States Are Taking Action In response to (and in some cases before) the new ACIP recommendations, several states issued recommendations, guidelines, standing orders, executive directives, and health alerts for providers to provide clarity. States Recommending or Encouraging the Full Vaccine Series Some states are issuing their own guidance and recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine series or encouraging providers to adhere to the series as is it was before the new ACIP recommendations: The Northeast Public Health Collaborative released a consensus statement before the ACIP meeting recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and a schedule that aligns with clinical recommendations. Collaborative members also issued statements reaffirming their adherence to established hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Maryland also released guidance for parents and caregivers about its childhood immunization recommendations. States in the West Coast Health Alliance issued statements supporting the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. These states include California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Many individual states also issued statements affirming the recommendation for the continued use of the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, including Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Vermont. States Issuing Standing Orders and Executive Directives At least two states issued a standing order or executive directive related to the hepatitis B vaccine: The Maryland Department of Health issued a standing order to ensure hepatitis B vaccine access for infants and children in the state. The standing order authorizes qualified health care providers to administer the hepatitis B vaccine and outlines the policies and procedures for administering the vaccine. In New Jersey, the acting health commissioner issued an executive directive recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. States Issuing Public Health Alerts and Advisories Well before the recent ACIP meeting, the Maine CDC issued a health advisory to providers recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. Since the ACIP meeting, at least two other states have released provider advisories. Maryland issued a letter to providers laying out the state’s hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, and New Hampshire issued a health alert with a continued recommendation for the full hepatitis B vaccine series and birth dose. In addition, Vermont sent a guidance letter to the providers in the state’s vaccine program. States Reexamine State Statutes and Agency Rules Linking to ACIP Recommendations Over the last several months, many states have proposed and enacted legislation to move away from sole reliance on ACIP recommendations. More recently, Massachusetts adopted H 4761, authorizing the health commissioner — in consultation with a newly established committee on immunization recommendations — to review and issue alternative standards to ACIP recommendations. States are also proposing changes to agency rules related to school and childcare immunization requirements. For example, Colorado’s health department has issued a proposed rule to modify the state’s standards for school and childcare immunization requirements and to align its rules with recent changes to state statute. Additional Considerations for States If CDC adopts the proposed ACIP recommendations, states can consider the following actions. Hepatitis B Screening States should continue to work with health care providers to close gaps in hepatitis B screening and follow-up for infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. Data show the most common cause of perinatal infection occurs when a mother with hepatitis B gives birth and the infant does not receive follow-up postexposure prophylaxis. Insurance Coverage While public and private insurance, including the Vaccines for Children program, are still required to cover the hepatitis B vaccine, such as any birth doses given to infants of HBsAg-negative mothers under shared clinical decision-making, states can consider creating additional coverage requirements. Some states have passed policies on insurance coverage, and other states have proposed legislation related to other vaccine coverage. Implementation of Shared Clinical Decision-Making While health care providers and parents have the flexibility to determine their approach for infants of HBsAg-negative mothers (i.e., continuing to recommend/give a birth dose), ACIP recommendations that rely on shared clinical decision-making have increased provider questions on how to have and document these conversations. States can work with medical associations, provider boards, and health care partners to ensure clinicians understand how to apply shared clinical decision-making recommendations. This includes educating staff in birthing hospitals, community clinics, and pediatric practices on how to counsel parents and document informed discussions. Jurisdictions can also develop or adapt educational materials and decision aids that clearly outline benefits, risks, timing, and follow-up options to support both providers and parents. More information on shared clinical decision-making is available from CDC and Common Health Coalition. States can also encourage providers and birthing institutions to examine workflows, Immunization Information System documentation, and follow-up to ensure scheduling of future doses. Implications for Vaccine Supply States can examine vaccine supply through the Vaccines for Children program to understand how the new recommendations impact supply of single antigen hepatitis B vaccines. If a significant percentage of the population receives vaccines on a different timetable, it could impact supply and timing for other vaccinations, given the reliance on combination vaccines for hepatitis B dose two and three, which can include DTaP, polio, and Hib vaccines. Supplemental Resources Common Health Coalition: Vaccine Resources December 2025 ACIP Meeting: Hepatitis B Updates for Health Leaders (PDF) Vaccine Integrity Project – Hepatitis B by Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Understanding the Benefits of Vaccines: Common Questions by HealthyChildren.org Childhood Vaccinations (PDF) by Your Local Epidemiologist Hep B Birth Dose Media Toolkit by Hepatitis B Foundation Reframing the Conversation About Child and Adolescent Vaccinations by Frameworks Institute CDC: ACIP Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations ACIP Meeting Materials for Public Posting: Hepatitis B Birth Dose Briefing Document (PDF) Hepatitis B Birth Dose Vaccination (PDF) article yes

States Are Innovating to Improve Indoor Air Quality Abe Kulungara Indoor air quality can significantly impact health and well-being—learn how states are using policy to address this issue. Whether at home, in the workplace, or in schools, the air we breathe inside is affected by improper ventilation, exposure to toxic chemical cleaning agents, buildup of moisture, and the presence of pests—all of which contribute to poor indoor air quality (IAQ). In addition, increases in extreme weather conditions (e.g., heat, hurricanes, flooding) can deteriorate buildings, reducing the physical barriers between outdoor and indoor spaces. And inadequate weatherization of schools and buildings can lead to indoor fungi and mold growth. Indoor air pollutants can have both short-term and long-term impacts on public health and well-being. Some examples of health outcomes (and their associated hazards) include: acute injury (carbon monoxide and other asphyxiants from combustion and safety hazards from improper design), cancer (asbestos and radon), infectious disease (COVID-19), as well as allergic disorders and asthma (mold and other products of damp indoor environments. Furthermore, poor IAQ in school can potentially affect comfort, concentration, and student performance. While the United States has made significant progress in improving outdoor environmental quality, improvements in indoor environments have been much slower, despite Americans spending approximately 90% of their lives indoors. In many cases, the responsibility for improving IAQ falls to individual states, resulting in a patchwork of regulations and varied approaches across the country. Indoor Air Quality at the Federal Level The federal government’s authority over indoor air quality is limited to federal buildings but there is no current comprehensive national regulation specifically focused on indoor air quality. Notwithstanding, federal laws and regulations addressing outdoor air quality can indirectly impact indoor air quality. For example, the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to establish and enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants in outdoor air, such as ground-level ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Improvements to ambient air quality will have an impact on indoor air quality as well. Even though the federal government’s role in IAQ is less direct, agencies including EPA have issued voluntary guidelines and best practices. This gap in federal regulations offers state and local governments the opportunity to set standards for their jurisdictions. The Model Clean Indoor Air Quality Act The Model Clean Indoor Air Quality Act (MCIAA) provides a framework for states to adopt and implement measures that are most relevant to their local needs and circumstances, much like the Model Food Code is used by states for food safety regulations. The Act consists of six main articles, each containing key sections designed to support a comprehensive mission of safeguarding and enhancing IAQ in public buildings through collaboration among public and private entities. The Act also presents extensive statutory language on IAQ and offers states the flexibility to choose the components that best suit their specific needs, priorities, and local conditions. By adopting the Model Act or portions of it, states can establish standards for ventilation, moisture control, hazardous materials use, and public education efforts. State Actions on Indoor Air Quality A growing number of states are proactively improving indoor air quality. Massachusetts recently introduced SD 2588, which incorporates language from MCIAA, while others are addressing IAQ issues more broadly, enacting legislation that prohibits smoking in indoor public spaces or responding to specific local challenges (e.g., mold, radon, volatile organic compounds ). At least five states are considering various bills relating to air quality in public schools. Massachusetts (SD 173 and SD 630) and New Jersey (S 1033) are establishing task forces or commissions to study indoor air quality. Connecticut (HB 5873), New York (A 2649) Virginia (HB 2618 and SB 1413) are establishing or amending indoor air quality standards for public schools. Massachusetts (HD 2890) is also prohibiting cleaning agents that could have an adverse effect on health. As states consider streamlining indoor air quality standards using the MCIAA, there are a large number of current statutes that improve IAQ. For example, Florida requires their Department of Health to have an IAQ testing and monitoring program to assess health risks from exposure to chemical, physical, and biological agents in the indoor environment. In Hawaii, the Department of Health is authorized to correct indoor air pollution problems in all buildings. The agency must establish and coordinate an IAQ assessment network involving state agencies and managers of publicly owned buildings to identify, evaluate, and resolve indoor air pollution problems. The statute also grants the agency the authority to implement a program for approving plans to construct, inspect, and monitor ventilation systems, as well as to provide IAQ information to managers, owners, and occupants of both public and private buildings. Other states, such as Washington and Oregon, have implemented programs that focus on IAQ in schools, acknowledging children’s unique vulnerabilities to poor air quality. ASTHO will continue to monitor and provide updates. article yes

State Policies Aim to Eliminate Food Deserts Beth Giambrone Learn how states are working to improve access to healthy foods and eliminate food deserts in this Health Policy Update. The environment where we live, work, and play can shape eating habits and make healthy eating difficult. This is especially true when nutritious foods are costly and unavailable and unhealthy foods are abundant and accessible. More than 47 million people nationwide live in food insecure households, including more than 7 million children. In addition, more than 27 million people live in "food deserts," generally defined as areas where residents do not have a convenient option for affordable, healthy food, like a supermarket or large grocery store. People who live in food deserts may be at higher risk of obesity and chronic disease. Furthermore, children and young adults who live in food insecure households are more likely to have poor academic outcomes. Increasing Access to Healthy Foods In recent years, jurisdictions have taken a multi-layered approach to increasing access to healthy foods. In 2023, the Texas legislature enacted HB 3323, which established a food system security and resiliency planning council, and requires a food system security plan for reasonably-priced food to ensure public health and welfare, economic development, the protection of the state’s agricultural resources, and includes legislative recommendations to facilitate the availability of food in the state. In 2024, Delaware enacted SB 254, establishing the Delaware Grocery Initiative to expand access to healthy foods in the state’s food deserts and areas at risk of becoming food deserts. The bill authorizes the state’s Division of Small Business to award grants and financial assistance to entities that provide or support affordable, accessible, or healthy food, including food banks and pantries, supermarkets, and corner stores. It also directs the Delaware Council on Farm & Food Policy to develop a strategy to address food insecurity in communities throughout the state and issue a report by June 1, 2025. Also in 2024, Colorado enacted HB 24-1416, codifying an incentive program designed to increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income communities. In 2024, jurisdictions also enacted legislation that makes supplemental nutritional assistance more accessible. California (AB 2786) requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to allow newly created certified mobile farmers’ markets to participate in the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, if approved by USDA. Connecticut (HB 5003) requires the Department of Agriculture to purchase and make needed equipment available so certain nutrition program participants can make purchases at farmers’ markets. And Pennsylvania (SB 721) established a permanent Women, Infants, and Children State Advisory Board to advise the Department of Health on solutions to increase participation in the WIC program, including increasing access to WIC-authorized stores for participants. Jurisdictions also enacted legislation ensuring students receive healthy school meals through farm-to-school programs. New Hampshire HB 1678 created a pilot program that incentivizes school districts to buy food for school meals that come from local farms and producers. Virginia HB 830/SB 314 established a Farm to School Program Task Force within the Department of Education to increase farm-to-school school programs within the state, including programs where public schools purchase and feature locally produced food prominently in school meals and learning opportunities related to local food and agriculture. Ensuring Students are Fed At the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year, eight states, including California, Colorado, Maine Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont, provided free school meals to all public-school students regardless of income. In 2023, Illinois (HB 2471) and Washington (HB 1238) also enacted legislation to provide universal free school meals or expand access to free school meals for public school students. The programs in both states are subject to funding. In 2024, at least two jurisdictions enacted legislation to study and report on the cost and impact of providing free breakfast and lunch to all public-school students. Maryland (SB 579) required the Department of Education to submit a report on the cost of providing free meals to all public school students by December 1, 2024, while Virginia (SB 283) directed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to explore the impact of offering free school meals to all students and identify options to eliminate student and school meal debt and leverage federal and state programs to provide school meals. Virginia’s report was published in November 2024 and, while noting the significant costs and sustainability concerns associated with free school meals for all students, it included several strategies for maximizing existing meal programs in the state. A number of jurisdictions have also expanded eligibility requirements or updated student meal program policies in recent legislative sessions. Two states enacted legislation requiring all public schools to provide a free breakfast and lunch to students who qualify for a reduced-price meal under the Federal School Breakfast Program and Federal School Lunch Program: Louisiana in 2023 (HB 282) and Delaware in 2024 (HB 125). New Jersey (A5684) took a similar approach and also expanded state-based income eligibility criteria to allow more students to receive free meals at school. In 2023, North Dakota (HB 1494) enacted a law requiring schools participating in the federal school lunch program to adopt and publish a school meals policy that prohibits schools from taking action against students who lack funds or have unpaid meal balances, such as taking away a student’s food if they have already been served, requiring the student to work to pay off the debt, or limiting participation in school activities due to an unpaid balance. Several states also enacted legislation to benefit students during the non-school months through summer food programs. In 2023, Maine enacted LD 947, which requires summer food service program rules to allow for maximum flexibility under federal law for mealtimes and packaging of meals to send home with students. That same year, as part of a broader piece of human services legislation, California (AB 120) required the State Department of Social Services to maximize participation in the Summer EBT program, which provides funding to families with school-aged children to buy groceries during the summer. And in 2024, Hawaii (HB 2430) and New Hampshire (SB 499) enacted legislation authorizing participation in the Summer EBT program. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on this important issue. article yes

2026 State Legislative Session Update 2026 State Legislative Session Update Learn about state legislation from FY26 focused on hot public health topics in this Health Policy Update. ASTHO’s 2026 Legislative Prospectus Series announced the top five public health state policy issues to watch this year. With at least 30 states scheduled to conclude their legislative sessions by the end of May, state legislatures focused on many of these public health topics. Expanding Access to Care As expected, a number of states considered legislation to expand access to care, including policies that promote community-based services and rural health care access. Doula birthing support services continue to be a topic for state legislatures with at least a dozen states considering legislation to expand coverage or access. Oregon enacted SB 1568, expanding coverage for birth and postpartum doulas and lactation counselors. Virginia enacted two bills that support access to doulas: HB 328 requires the Bureau of Insurance to select a new essential health benefits benchmark plan that includes doula care coverage starting in 2029, while HB 838 expands Medicaid coverage to include incentive payments for doulas to provide linkage to care visits in the postpartum period. For other licensed health care professionals, interstate compacts allow health care professionals licensed in one member state to practice in another without additional credentials. This year, legislatures have considered more than 100 health care professional compact bills so far, with at least six states enacting legislation: Arizona (HB 2190), North Dakota (HB 1622), and South Dakota (HB 1146) adopted the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact. New Mexico adopted the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (SB 1) and the Social Work Licensure Compact (HB 50). Mississippi (SB 2543) adopted the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact. Washington (HB 2088) adopted the Dietitian Licensure Compact. Finally, at least two states enacted legislation to expand telehealth. Virginia HB 1284 specifies that its Medicaid provider-to-provider consultation provision includes services provided via telehealth, and Kentucky HB 424 eases the requirements for social worker telehealth practice. Behavioral Health Legislatures are also continuing to explore policies that address mental health and substance misuse. This includes legislation that supports people across the care continuum, explores the use of psychoactive substances in mental health treatment, and regulates emerging substances. At least seven states have enacted legislation to establish or enhance the continuity of care for people in a behavioral health crisis. This includes Maine LD 1216, which requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish crisis intervention support services in all counties. Virginia enacted HB 453, which specifically allows amendments to the state’s Marcus Alert plan supporting the state’s comprehensive crisis system and requires state agencies and local partners to align their policies accordingly. States also continue to promote the availability of opioid reversal drugs through legislative action. Virginia SB 257/HB795 requires certain health insurance plans to include at least one opioid antagonist with limited cost-sharing on their drug formularies. Kansas HB 2534 requires schools to stock naloxone and establish polices to support its administration, and Utah SB 87 clarified its immunity provisions for administering opioid antagonists and will allow expired — but still effective — opioid antagonists to be dispensed and administered in certain situations. Another trend this legislative session is the legalization and regulation of use, medical study, and reclassification of certain psychedelic drugs for therapeutic purposes. Several states considered legislation to allow psilocybin for therapeutic purposes, including Oregon HB 4040, which already allows psilocybin service centers and expanded its licensing criteria for psilocybin service facilitators. At least 23 states considered, and five states (Mississippi SB 2056, South Dakota HB 1099, Utah SB 83, Virginia SB 379, and West Virginia SB 906) enacted legislation that would automatically reschedule psilocybin or certain formulations, pending federal approval and/or rescheduling. Finally, at least 10 states considered bills to support access or research into ibogaine, which is being studied in relation to PTSD and substance use disorder. States include Washington (SB 5204), Oregon (HB 4110), Tennessee (SB 2149/HB 2075), Louisiana (SB 43), Oklahoma (HB 3834), and Georgia (HB 1296), with Mississippi enacting HB 314 to allow the state health department to participate in a consortium supporting clinical trials for ibogaine drug development. A number of states are also taking action to address kratom, a plant-based substance with the potential for serious side effects, including substance use disorder and withdrawal symptoms. As of January 2026, 31 jurisdictions regulate kratom, with at least five states enacting legislation this year. New York (A 9472/S 8814), Virginia (HB 360), and West Virginia (SB 985) established or enhanced prohibitions on selling kratom to people under 21, while Nebraska (LB 901) enacted an excise tax on kratom products. Utah enacted two bills (HB 385 and SB 45) that regulate processors and retailers and New York mandated warning labels on certain kratom products (A 9443/S 8780). Healthy Food and Chronic Disease States continue to prioritize chronic disease by advancing policies recognizing the importance of prevention and how food impacts health. In 2026, a number of states considered legislation to address food insecurity, improve school nutrition, and promote chronic disease screening and prevention. At least 10 states considered legislation to limit ultra-processed foods or promote access to healthy foods, with Nebraska LB 940 prohibiting public schools from offering foods that contain certain color additives and Tennessee SB 2423/HB 1853 taking a similar approach but for any artificial food dye. States are also exploring ways to accommodate student dietary preferences. Minnesota (SF 2970), New Jersey (S 1676), New York (A 1834), and Washington (S 5878) introduced legislation that would mandate plant-based options in school cafeterias. Illinois enacted HB 1607, creating a health department task force to review state efforts to eliminate food deserts and requiring a report with recommendations by January 2028. Finally, state legislatures are taking action to support access to early detection and chronic disease management through insurance regulation. Mississippi enacted HB 565 to require Medicaid and other health plans to cover biomarker testing for the diagnosis, treatment, management, or monitoring of patients when supported by medical evidence. Additionally, Oregon enacted SB 1527, which limits out of pocket costs for medically necessary cervical cancer screenings and follow-up examinations. Finally, Alabama (SB 19) will prohibit certain insurance plans from imposing cost-sharing for prostate cancer screening of all men over 50 and younger men at high risk. Infectious Disease Prevention With recent changes to the membership and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a number of state legislatures have considered changes to vaccine policy in 2026. Several states enacted legislation to modify the role of ACIP, including Colorado (SB 26-032), Connecticut (HB 5044), Maine (LD 2146), Maryland (HB 637), New Mexico (HB 156), Oregon (SB 1598), Vermont (H 545), and Washington (HB 2242). Many of these bills address other components of vaccine policy, including: Vaccine Schedule Recommendations: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington substitute or add state health agencies and/or organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians as sources for vaccine recommendations. Insurance Coverage: Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington require health insurance plans to cover vaccines recommended by health agencies or other organizations, rather than ACIP alone. Pharmacist Scope of Practice: Maryland and Vermont substitute or remove ACIP recommendations as an authority for pharmacists to administer vaccines, and Colorado allows pharmacists to prescribe vaccines independently. Funding: Colorado, Maine, and Vermont expand vaccine purchasing programs to include vaccines recommended by bodies other than ACIP. Liability Protections: Colorado, Maine, and Vermont include liability protections for certain providers administering vaccines according to state or medical organization recommendations. Public Health Funding Legislatures in thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories will enact budgets for the 2027 fiscal year, while legislatures in three more states will enact biennial budgets for the 2027 and 2028 fiscal years. With reductions in federal funding, states continue to find ways to leverage state funds to invest in public health and public health infrastructure while adhering to balanced budget requirements. Eleven states have enacted FY 2027 budgets and three states enacted biennial budgets for FY 2027-FY 2028, with several states increasing public health funding, including Kansas (HB 2513), New Mexico (HB 2), and Wyoming (SF 0001). Additionally, three states passed FY 2027 supplemental budgets featuring public health provisions: Maine LD 2212 appropriates funding to support access to affordable prescription drugs in rural and underserved areas, Washington SB 6003 increases funding for the state’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and Nebraska LB 1071 shifts funds to children’s health insurance, community-based aging services, and mental health operations. States have also

ASTHO's 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part Two Beth Giambrone, Maggie Davis, Christina Severin ASTHO's Public Health Legislative Update on Tobacco, Mental Health, Environmental Health, Workforce, and Containing Infectious Disease By the end of April, at least 36 states will have concluded their regularly scheduled 2024 sessions, with several states passing laws on important public health issues. Earlier this month, ASTHO provided a brief update on five of the top 10 public health state policy issues to watch during the 2024 state and territorial legislative sessions; this update examines the remaining five. Containing the Spread of Infectious Disease Public health agencies have a responsibility to keep their communities safe and healthy by maintaining foundational public health services including identifying, containing, and preventing the spread of communicable disease. ASTHO supports maintaining and guaranteeing robust public health legal authorities allowing public health leaders to meet their responsibilities for containing the spread of infectious disease. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, state and territorial legislatures considered many bills to change public health agency’s legal authorities to meet their responsibility, a trend that ASTHO anticipated continuing into 2024. So far, at least 28 states have considered, and at least two legislatures passed, bills relating to public health authority to address the spread of infectious disease in 2024. For example, the Hawaii legislature passed SB 3122, expanding public health authority by providing the state health official broad authority to issue standing orders for people 18 years and older to receive evidence-based services recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. In March, however, Utah enacted HB 405, which limits local public health official’s authority to issue an isolation or quarantine order to specific conditions unless the local legislative body agrees that a new, drug resistant, or reemerging pathogen likely to cause high mortality or morbidity needs containment. Environmental Health Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has the authority to set national standards for public drinking water. These standards establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals for public water systems. In April 2024, EPA released a final rule establishing legally enforceable MCLs for six PFAS compounds that occur in drinking water. Public water systems have until 2027 to complete initial monitoring and inform residents of the levels of PFAS in their water, and until 2029 to act if their drinking water levels exceed the MCLs. To date in 2024, at least four states have enacted or are considering legislation that would aid in monitoring and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Virginia recently enacted HB 1085/SB 243, which requires that the Department of Health notify the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of any results from their monitoring of public water systems that show MCL exceedances, at which time requires DEQ to implement a plan to prioritize and conduct assessments of the public water system's raw water source(s). The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed H 7439, which would require the Department of Environmental Management to determine the maximum number of PFAS detectable by standard laboratory methods, and specifies the types of water systems that will be required to monitor untreated drinking water for those PFAS by June 1, 2025. Massachusetts is considering H 853, which would require the Department of Environmental Protection to maintain a list of municipalities where PFAS levels exceed the MCL and provide vouchers to homes in those municipalities to purchase home water filtration equipment. Strengthening the Public Health Workforce With several successes in 2023, ASTHO anticipated legislatures to continue considering legislation to strengthen the public health and health care workforces that represent the communities they serve during the 2024 legislative sessions. One strategy is establishing career pathway programs that provide students training and support to pursue public health careers. At least six states have considered, and three have passed, bills creating or strengthening a career pathway program during the current legislative sessions. At least two states have enacted programs to address health care provider shortages in April. Maine’s legislature passed LD 2268, which would allow internationally trained physicians to receive a limited license to practice medicine and address provider shortages in rural areas of the state. Washington enacted SB 5582, directing community and technical colleges to develop a plan in consultation with local workforce development councils and health care employers to train more nurses over the next four years. In May, Hawaii’s legislature passed HB 1827 appropriating funds to support public high school health care workforce certificate programs to support graduates seeking entry-level positions in the health care industry. Supporting Mental Health Children and adolescents continue to experience mental health issues, with teen girls reporting significant challenges. Schools can play an important role in supporting the mental health of all students through direct services or policies that address prevention, education or coordination. In 2024, a number of jurisdictions considered legislation related to youth mental health, through training requirements for staff and students, and support for treatment flexibility in the school setting. At least six jurisdictions considered bills related to mental health education for students, including specific suicide and violence prevention content. Virigina enacted HB 603, which requires school health instruction to include information about common mental health challenges, helpful coping strategies, the importance of seeking help from a professional or other adult, and available school resources. Several jurisdictions, including Virginia (HB 224), Minnesota (HF 4363) and Missouri (HB 2471), also considered establishing or amending suicide prevention and related mental health training programs for teachers and other school staff. Finally, several jurisdictions considered legislation to explore or otherwise support using telehealth services in schools for mental health services. Minnesota is considering legislation that would create a pilot program to determine whether the availability of telehealth services in schools increases mental health access (SF 4236) as well as a requirement to provide space at secondary schools for students to receive telehealth mental health services (HF 3542). New York is currently considering S 8976, which would authorize telehealth services in schools to be delivered by licensed providers, while Maryland enacted HB 522 in April, which requires school districts to develop guidelines to allow telehealth appointments at schools starting in the 2025-26 school year. Tobacco and Nicotine Products According to the American Lung Association, 22 states do not have comprehensive smoke-free laws that help protect against the dangers of second-hand smoke in a variety of settings (e.g., multi-family homes, public spaces, restaurants), or reduce the number of people who start smoking. At least 16 states have introduced legislation aimed at creating, promoting, or expanding smoke-free environments. Connecticut recently enacted SB 132, which expands their clean indoor air act to prohibit vaping at dog race tracks. The Maryland legislature passed HB 238/SB 244, which would update their Clean Indoor Air Act to prohibit vaping in public indoor areas, indoor places of employment, and mass transportation. In addition, the Alabama Senate recently passed SB 37, which would prohibit vaping in public places. In addition, at least 14 states have introduced legislation to either prohibit or further restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol products. For example, bills introduced in Hawaii (HB 2441/SB 3130), Minnesota (HF 2177/SF 2123), and New Jersey (S 1947) would prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, within their jurisdiction. In addition, a bill in New York (A 699/S4477) would ban the sale of flavored smokeless tobacco products within five hundred feet of a public or private school. ASTHO’s state health policy team continues to monitor these important public health issues and will provide relevant updates. website yes

In 2023 legislative sessions, states considered measures to improve access to care for pregnant people experiencing substance use disorder, increase provider knowledge of screening and treatment practices, coordinate care for conditions co-occurring with SUD, and keeping families together.

Earth Day is a natural time to examine current and future climate change policies that impact human health, including clean air, safe drinking water, access to food, and secure shelter.

A pressing public health issue before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the need for public health interventions to reduce tobacco use is heightened with a strong association between tobacco use, in all forms, with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., claiming approximately 480,000 deaths each year. Evidence-based policies to reduce tobacco use like raising the age of sale to 21, increasing tobacco pricing, and prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products are common public health strategies enacted through state legislation. As anticipated in ASTHO’s 2021 Legislative Prospectus on E-Cigarettes, states are considering many of these evidenced-based tobacco reduction strategies during the 2021 legislative sessions.

ASTHO staff identified a range of evidence-supported policies considered by state legislatures that could prevent ACEs. This report synthesizes these research and policy proposals and is intended for public health practitioners and policymakers who are considering adopting similar policies.